It seems to me that if the heritage of a house that is in such a dire state can still legally require an owner to maintain it because it is considered a landmark, then the same level of responsibility must be required to provide access for people for disability.
Californian law prohibits historical landmarks from being destroyed if there are feasible ways to preserve them.
In my view the argument put forward by the heritage lobby, both here and in other places is a well constructed one for their cause. They tend to argue that regardless of the owners’ wishes, if it is possible to maintain the heritage fabric then this is required, regardless of cost or preference. Based on this case it seems that the argument is indeed now a legal one, thus providing a strategic response to their issue . It would seem that the argument runs that if you don’t want to bother with maintaining heritage – don’t buy a heritage property!
Uphold Our Heritage rejected this argument, writing on its website that “the owner’s unwillingness to pay does NOT equal infeasibility”.
It’s important that we up the ante on requiring access of all sorts in much the same way as OH and S laws, if we are serious about respecting our discrimination laws and the UN Convention on the Rights of people with disability.
Connections people…..
Possibly Related Posts:
- Rubbing the tummy of the person with disability
- tuesday tiny: too cute not to share
- A card carrying bone fide
- all about the paradigm
- the voice Australia has a vision of loveliness
Try this one…..
http://www.english-heritage.org.uk/server/show/nav.17587